Budgets
Howard govt - - Posted on May, 10 at 12:08 am by Ken L
Imagine if your local council was such an irresponsible financial manager that its income exceeded the figure it had budgeted by so much that it struggled to find ways to spend the money. There would be an inquiry and the council would be sacked for incompetence, to be replaced by an administrator.
Or imagine the council deliberately set rates at a level that generated much more money than it had budgeted to spend, just so that in election year it could suddenly announce a new library, extensions to the aquatic centre and five crisp new hundred dollar bills for all the old folk, just to recognise everything they’d put into the community. Once again the council would be replaced by an administrator and this time the inquiry would be to decide if charges should be laid for corruption.
Different rules obviously apply to federal politics. If you pull the same stunt there, the crowd gasps in delight as if you’d pulled an enormous bunch of flowers out of your assistant’s nose. Not only is it lauded as a stroke of political genius but as one that will have the opposition reeling in disarray.
If Rudd and company really were taken by surprise they don’t deserve to be elected to run Fraser Island. Of course this was a budget full of shiny trinkets for the mum and dad voters. All the people expressing wonderment at what a great job Tip’s done really should be given a good slap. What the hell else did they think Tip was going to do? Send the surplus to that Nigerian chap he met via email? Hide it under the mattress and pretend it didn’t exist?
If Labor wants to run this line about it not being a budget for the future I don’t suppose it can do any harm. But surely they’d be much better off bouncing off the ‘Howard’s a clever politician’ line, and working up some friggin’ outrage at the way Tip and Howard have deliberately ripped tens of billions of dollars off Australians just so they can put on their best cheery grins and announce how they intend to give some of it back.
And if they’re having trouble whipping up some outrage of their own they can have some of mine. I’ve got plenty to share over Howard’s shonky mob of ripoff merchants. I feel like going over to Catallaxy and joining the ‘taxation is theft’ club. Bah!
Posted in Howard govt |
May 10th, 2007 at 2:13 am
I had to laugh at this breathtakingly transparent attempt at bribery — surely Labor could make political gold out of that tax-happy thicko tearing an ill-gotten surplus into confetti in a naked attempt to win back the hearts of a disgusted nation through their basest, most greedy instincts. Moral outrage isn’t just for twirling-eyed Baptists and posturing neocon filth — if Labor hammered on the craven, sociopathic pandering that lies at the heart of the Liberal MO, they could really go places.
…Unless I’m massively overestimating the Australian public and the Labor Party’s position, which I probably am. I’m not a hopeless misanthrope, but our population doesn’t exactly smell like roses after 11 years in a shambling Milton Friedman fantasy world.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:44 am
The GST take stabilises the income stream needed to fund the states via grants. That’s not a worry anymore, like it used to be.
This allows the income tax revenues to be used for paying off government debt and for pork-barrelling. They’re pure cream.
Meanwhile, the Battlers and small business, stripped of their cash via both these taxes, go into debt to fund their aspirations and their enterprises. The PAYG system just twists the knife, keeps us pinioned.
Voila! We have a debt-free government with bragging rights for Costello, and the biggest private debt number in history for the rest of us folk.
Whole policy areas are neglected so that the “helping hand” of government can be seen to rescue them at the last minute.
The Australian public is like a battered wife: deprived and brutally dealt with by the head of the house, with just enough red roses, chocolates and heartfelt apologies thrown in at critical times to stop them packing their bags and leaving.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:43 am
I agree, and feel that this line can be simplified even further. The Opposition simply needs to repeatedly emphasise that the Government is effectively mugging a passer-by, stealing $100.00, then giving $50.00 to the same passer-by three years later and expecting to be praised!
May 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Sorry but at this stage I don’t think this line would bite.
The local government analogy is a good one. But in local government any swifty manouvres are quickly found out because they are so evident.
A new library or a brand new baby health centre are immediately visible, maybe a tax cut less so. Of course they are as well to some extent but they become absorbed into the day to day accounts and their impact may be less.
Also Labor has made the mistake of being negative before and it hasn’t given it any positive electoral results.
What Labor needs to emphasize is the ‘vision thing’(and that is something that Rudd has been doing well, and has put Howard on the backfoot). Not being negative but really offering a positive alternative.
This budget has been an attempt to somehow steal that vision away from the ALP, with education etc. which was a clever manouvre from their part, but the ALP can regain this if it plan its strategy well enough.
We’ll see tonight.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Aussie Bob, I dips me lid. That is the best analogy I have seen, ever.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I notice that just as Howard and co have taken up Rudd’s ‘clever’ mantra, Rudd and co have started pairing ‘clever’ with ‘cunning’.
I’m waiting for ‘cunning’ to merge with ’sly’, only a minute implication away from ‘old’.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Ken, maybe you really should become a libertarian (hate that word - not the idea).
Peter Saunders in the Australian has a pretty good take on the budget from a libertarian POV. I would be surprised if many here had much issue with it.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Lyn, you are deadly. I have been thinking the same thing. Mean and tricky will be the final verse.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Lyn, look behind you!
May 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Christine, I would, but I’m too old to turn my neck that far without falling over.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“I notice that just as Howard and co have taken up Rudd’s ‘clever’ mantra, Rudd and co have started pairing ‘clever’ with ‘cunning’”
A friend mentioned this to me this morning. Great idea.
In this vein I have started referring to employers groups as the bosses unions.
I think we need to turn their own framing back on them whenever possible and the substitution of ‘cunning’ for ‘clever’ does that nicely. Particularly when ‘cunning’ is also often associated with ‘rat’. I like it
May 10th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Saunders promotes tax “reform” (always be wary of a reliance on ‘reform’) as though it’s some lofty, visionary ideal - in practice he means is funneling surplus money into making the income tax system more regressive. Remember, he is from the CIS, they very consciously strive to further corporate interests and those of economic elites generally. ‘Libertarianism’ is naked corporate ideology: remember they don’t hate government, just when it serves the general public instead of corporate interests.
I think most here would agree with Saunders that Costello’s bribery is economically stupid, but wouldn’t agree that tax cuts en masse rather than injection into medicare, needy schools, infrastructure, etc is what is needed. I can’t speak for Ken, but I know there is a large gap between this so-called ‘libertarianism’ and the sort of left-of-centre social/economic views common on this board.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
… Yes, John Ralston Saul pointed out the shift of the debt burden in western societies from the public sector to the private sector in his epic book “Voltaire‘s Bastards”, published in 1994 (I think… I’d have to sift through my collection of books to verify this).
May 10th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Yes, John Ralston Saul pointed out the shift of the debt burden in western societies from the public sector to the private sector in his epic book
May 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Yes, John Ralston Saul pointed out the shift of the debt burden in western societies from the public sector to the private sector in his epic book
Which is a good thing of coarse. Those that insist on getting into debt can, and those that would rather not (like me) aren’t forced to. Quite apart from government debt shifting the burden to the next generation.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Well, congratulations to all on this thread for getting it! (even have to acknowledge Peter at the end there. A valid point, even if it is beside the main one about the ridiculous position this government has gotten itself into on tax.)
Sly, cunning, old - what about ‘hostage takers’? This lot have taken Middle Australia hostage to interest rates: “Go with the other mob and the whole place will explode” (They’ve taken the same line on Iraq, for what it’s worth). But since when did a small increase in interest rates mean the end of the world as we know it?
How did we get into a situation where even mildly expansionary fiscal policy (either real tax relief or spending/public investment) is viewed with horror by the population and the commentariat? Where we have to stash the cash in ‘future funds’ instead of investing it now in addressing real skills and capacity constraints?
And this is called sound economic management???
Three words: real estate boom. Three more words: Over-enthusiastic financial deregulation. (That’s four, actually.)
Meanwhile, the punters are struggling with record levels of debt to service their record mortgages while paying increasing education and health costs; and despite the most favourable terms of trade we’ve ever seen we can’t come within a bull’s roar of a trade surplus because we aren’t competitive enough in anything other than digging dirt out of the ground and putting it in big ships.
Bogus. Completely bogus. I refuse to be taken hostage any longer.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Paul said:
‘Libertarianism’ is naked corporate ideology: remember they don’t hate government, just when it serves the general public instead of corporate interests.
This is wrong on the face of it. Even Adam Smith warned against business capturing the machinery of government. A large, do everything government makes that quite easy. I know your economics isn’t that great Paul, but please at least read up on the basics.
I think most here would agree with Saunders that Costello’s bribery is economically stupid, but wouldn’t agree that tax cuts en masse rather than injection into medicare, needy schools, infrastructure, etc is what is needed. I can’t speak for Ken, but I know there is a large gap between this so-called ‘libertarianism’ and the sort of left-of-centre social/economic views common on this board.
This is also completely unnecessary - the huge sums now flowing into Super funds could easily fund infrastructure. It should all be privatized so that it can happen. You wouldn’t trust the government to run the supermarkets so why do you like the idea of them providing, say, our water supply? I personnally wouldn’t trust them to run the corner store.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Ah but Peter ‘the huge sums now flowing into Super funds’ are occurring because of compulsion by the State … to be consistent, you should argue that contributions to superannuation should be completely voluntary, in which case the flow of funds would dry up immediately as people decided to use the money to pay off their mortgages instead.
And on the bigger issue yes, it’s nice to see Saunders basically agreeing with me for once :-D.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
“You wouldn’t trust the government to run the supermarkets so why do you like the idea of them providing, say, our water supply? I personnally wouldn’t trust them to run the corner store.”
Peter, this is sooo silly. Whoever said that government should run supermarkets or corner stores? That sounds like one of Maggie’s strawmen to me.
In this country we have long prided ourselves on managing to provide the common necessities, like water for example, through common effort and pooled funding, known as taxes. Then we can get on with the job of running the corner stores and working in the supermarkets without having to buggerise around making “choices” about which water we should buy from which profiteer, when we should be getting a life.
Its our particular brand of the “mixed economy” and it has served us well for over a hundred years. See how rich we are? Tip Costello said so!
May 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Yes - I agree Ken. I’m not quite the full Libertarian, though I think their position is quite consistent. However, I think we could head a long, long way in that direction without any problems. This whole middle class welfare thing is just plain stupid. I am sure we agree on that. I find it completely stupid that after I go to the doctor I then have to stand in another line to get $20 back. Why can’t the system just take care of the really hard up and say make the rest of us pay the first $1000 (or whatever) of our medical bills. It is almost as if it is designed to waste money and time and employ people in useless, unproductive jobs.
May 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Grace - it isn’t silly. You wouldn’t trust the government to run the corner store for a reason. You ‘know’ they would stuff it up (witness the Soviet Union or Cuba). I never suggested that you or anyone here would recommend that (though I am quite sure there are plenty that would).
Do you say have a problem with the choice of telecoms now? I used to argue 30 years ago that Telecom Australia should be sold off and the whole system open to competition. Virtually everyone thought that was a bad idea. Yet it is happening. And because we were so reluctant to let it happen we were ‘very’ late to the party for mobile phone takeup (check the figures - we only started catching up 10 years ago). Same goes for Australia Post and yes, even water. Look at the monumental stuff up that is.
It it time that this vital infrastructure was taken out of the hands of the mildy competent and run as a proper business. I know it goes against the grain here but surely you can see which way the wind is blowing in this regard.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
And Grace - need I remind you of the multi guage rail fiasco? The same thing happened early on in the US but the competing rail companies realized early on that by having a common guage that business would expand for everyone. Quite a lot of early rail was ripped up and relayed.
Plaease don’t counter by mentioning the boondoggles of that age. I am quite familiar with them.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Peter I am touched by your naive faith in the skills of the people who gave us HIH, OneTel, Bond Corp etc etc ad nauseum.
May 11th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Well zoot - do I take that to imply that you would rather the gov run the supermarkets? If not, why not? There are naughty and stupid people in all walks of life - even business.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Peter you went back two centuries to find that little rail guages gem. Let’s shuffle forward into the 21st century shall we, for which I need to say no more than zoot has already done. Thanks zoot, short and sweet.
And yes, I do have a problem with all this telecom choice. I did not vote for the sale of Telstra and I am not a shareholder and I would prefer that our national telecommunications network was in the safety of government hands. How’s them onions?
Peter, I know which way the wind is blowing and its not your way. Try taking a longer view.
May 11th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Well Grace - there may be a faint breeze blowing the other way but not even King Crudd and the Barronness of LaLaLand will do much to change anything.
I sincerely hope you have a thick skull (in the nicest possible way) because you are going to need it over the coming years from all that bashing your head against a brick wall.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Peter, the reason I like the government supplying our water is that they are accountable to me (and everyone else who votes). Public ownership is not necessarily the problem. If we need to point fingers we should point it at the politicians who choose to ignore problems (wasn’t brought to my attention etc etc) and prefer not to fund infrastructure when they’d rather be spending money on vote buying. And maybe the drought and population growth and our own water profligacy all contribute to the water problem too. It’s just a little too convenient to claim that the problem is simply a result of public ownership.
And no, private companies won’t do a better job, they’ll just do a job that results in profit. They couldn’t really give a fig about customers (fly with qantas if you doubt that), they only care about maximising shareholder return.
Don’t tell me there will be competition and choice either. That, as it might apply to water, is laughable.
May 11th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Um rf, Qantas has led a cosseted existence for much of its life. They didn’t give a fig because they didn’t have to. Much like Telecom Australia (6 week waiting time anyone?) used to.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Peter as a matter of interest, do you know any commercial pilots? Or other people who are aware of developments in commercial aviation? If so, ask them if they believe safety standards are as high now as they were 20 years ago, or if they believe standards are declining in response to pressures to cut costs and be ‘more competitive’.
Speaking personally, I’m happy to put up with a certain level of inefficiency and pay a dollar premium to fly with an airline run by pilots and engineers who are obsessed with safety, as opposed to an airline run by accountants and entrepreneurs who are obsessed with maximising shareholder value.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Sorry Peter, Qantas has plenty of competition where I am and they are still shite, so we don’t have to talk past tense.
Enlighten me as to where competition in the water market will come from?